I issued a claim that I intended will be allocated to the small track. I received a letter from the court saying it has been considered that this claim is suitable for the small track and as a consequence I received an allocation questionnaire N149 for small track claims. Moreover the defendant agrees in this allocation questionnaire that this claim should be allocated to the small track.

However the defendant made an application to have this claim struck out. I think before this claim is allocated to a track. As a consequence this claim was struck out during a half a hour hearing and because it was not allocated yet to the small track the judge ordered me to pay the costs

During the hearing no statement of costs was available because the other party who was represented did not file or serve any statement of costs. As a consequence the judge instead of ordering a summary assessment he ordered a detailed assessment.

I would like to know if the judge failed as set out in CPR 44 PD 9.5(4)(b) to take into account the failure of the defendant to file a summary of costs and should have ordered no cost at all for the following reasons:

1. A small claim like mine is not suitable for a detailed assessment. I heard that detailed assessments are suitable only for complicated claims which hearing lasts more than one day.

2. The detailed assessment hearing will be a waste because the defendant will have to pay the cost of this hearing because he is responsible for the need for this hearing because he failed to file a summary of costs for the interlocutory hearing. Moreover the cost of this detailed assessment hearing will be the same or more than the interlocutory hearing because it is a small claim.

3. The other party did not ask for costs because he did not expect that costs will be awarded because this case was intended for the small track. It is the judge on his own initiative who decided that costs will be ordered. Moreover he was angry against me what could explain that he ordered costs against me even though he knew that there should not be costs against me because it was a claim intended for the small track

4. It is because this claim was not yet allocated to the small track even though it was intended to be allocated to the small track that costs were ordered against me. In this case I would like to know if the judge should have taken into account that according to CPR 46.13 (3) where the court is assessing costs on the standard basis of a claim which concluded without being allocated to a track, it may restrict those costs to costs that would have been allowed on the track to which the claim would have been allocated if allocation had taken place. And as a consequence the judge should have used CPR 46.13 (3) in connection with the defendant’s failure to file a statement of costs and ordered not cost at all because this claim was intended to be allocated to the small track for which there is no costs

I would like to know if as a consequence I have good grounds for appealing against this cost order made against me

My claim was struck out pursuant to CPR 3.4(2)(a) and (b). I disagree with this but I do not want to speak too much about the reason why it was struck out because I have limited time because the permission to appeal hearing will take place very soon. I prefer to concentrate on the issue of cost

(2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; ...

One moral of the story is to remember that if you lose a case, you are likely to have to pay costs. It is a good idea to be sure that your case has some merit, and will not be thrown out as being hopeless.

CPR 3.4 (2) The court may strike out a statement of case if it appears to the court –(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; ...

I cannot speak for the application of CPR, but it does seem right that a claimant who instigates a wholly unreasonable or abusive case should be liable for all the necessary costs of the defendant.

For a claimant it is not always easy to determine if his claim is unreasonable. Moreover claimants need before making the choice of issuing a claim or not to be sure if they could have to pay costs.

It is not always sure that a claim is unreasonable only because a judge has decided that it was specially when this decision has been taken by a judge sitting alone who maybe simply does not like litigants in person.

Can you tell me which CPR gives the right to the court to impose costs in a claim allocated to the small track if a party act unreasonably? Moreover my claim was not yet allocated to any track when it was struck out.

Further the other party also could have acted unreasonably by failing to file a statement of costs. And one of the questions raised by my thread is whether the judge should have assessed the cost on the small claim basis particularly because of this failure